Survey of refugees and humanitarian staff in Lebanon 14 November 2018 · Round 2 Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 1 Contents Executive summary 4 Background 4 Approach 4 Key findings 4 Recommendations 7 Section 1: survey data - Refugees 9 Reading this section 9 Sample of the affected people survey 9 Survey questions 10 Q1. Relevance 10 Q2. Fairness 10 Q3. Stability 11 Q4. Cash assistance 12 Q5. Participation 13 Q6. Awareness of aid 13 Q7. Trust 14 Q8. Complaints mechanisms 15 Q9. Safety 17 Q10. Host community relations 18 Q11. Empowerment 19 Q12. Employment 20 Q13. Progress 22 Q14. Education 22 Q15. Awareness of rights 24 Q16. Respect 24 Demographics 25 Section 2: survey data - Humanitarian staff 26 Reading this section 26 Sample of the humanitarian staff survey 26 Survey questions 27 Q1. Fairness 27 Q2. Relevance 27 Q3. Durable solutions 28 Q4. Reporting time 28 Q5. Reporting requirements 29 Q6. Localisation 29 Q7. Local capacity 30 Q8. Aid providers 30 Q9. Cash programmes 30 Q10. Share of cash programmes 30 Q11. Flexibility 30 Q12. Corrective action 31 Q13. Donor visits 31 Q14. Coordination 31 Q15. Humanitarian development nexus 32 Q16. Funding 32 Q17. Joint needs assessments 33 Q18. Logistical assest sharing 33 Q19. Participation 33 Q20. Feedback 34 Q21. Complaints mechanisms 34 Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 2 Q22. Respect 34 Q23. Reporting mistreatment 35 Q24. Safety 35 Demographics 36 Annex: notes on methodology 37 Sampling methodology 37 Question formulation 38 Data disaggregation 39 Language of the survey 40 Data collection 40 Challenges and limitations 40 Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 3 Executive summary Introduction and approach This report presents findings from the second annual survey of the views of Syrian and Palestine refugees in Lebanon. It tracks refugees’ perceptions of humanitarian action on the ground in light of the reform commitments made by donors and operational agencies as part of the Grand Bargain that was agreed at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. The research project is a joint effort by Ground Truth Solutions and the OECD secretariat with financial support from the UK’s Department for International Development. Lebanon is one of seven humanitarian programmes covered. The others are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Haiti, Uganda, and Somalia. A separate survey instrument looks at the perspective of humanitarian field staff in the seven countries. The report is based on answers to a standardised survey conducted with 895 Syrian and Palestine refugees across Lebanon’s eight governorates, and an online survey completed by 290 staff members of national and international aid agencies. Questions for both surveys were formulated using the Grand Bargain commitments as a framework. See the methodology section for more details. Key findings • Refugees remain sceptical and see little progress. Refugees are marginally less satisfied with humanitarian assistance than last year, with scores lower on most issues covered by the survey. • There are major differences in refugees’ views across governorates in terms of the quality and level of assistance available. • The relationship between the Lebanese host community and refugees is deteriorating. Refugees feel less welcome than last year. • Refugees feel less informed about the kind of aid that is available to them than they did last year. • The gap is widening between the way refugees and humanitarian staff see humanitarian aid programmes. While staff are more positive than last year about the relevance and fairness of aid provision, as well as about opportunities for refugees to participate in decisions that affect them, refugees’ perceptions are increasingly negative on these dimensions of performance. Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 4 Survey of refugees in Lebanon We have aligned our primary questions with the objectives of the 2018 update of the Lebanon Crisis Response Plan for 2017-2020: 1) Protection of vulnerable populations; 2) Assistance to vulnerable populations; 3) Provision of support services through national systems; and 4) Reinforcing Lebanon’s economic, social, and environmental stability. This summary covers the main findings of the refugee survey, with responses to the full set of questions included in the survey section. Assistance and services – links to objective two of the Crisis Response Plan: assistance to vulnerable populations • Priority needs are not met. Refugees say aid does not adequately cover their priority needs. Their views on the issue of relevance are more negative than last year, with food, cash assistance, and shelter the most important unmet needs. • Aid does not reach those who need it most. There is a prevailing sense that aid is not provided fairly, with the poorest least served. Scores are lower than last year. 2017 2018 2.2 Q1. Relevance of aid 1.8 2.2 Q2. Fairness of aid 2.0 1 2 3 4 5 NEGATIVE POSITIVE Participation and accountability • Refugees don’t feel they can participate. Refugees are pessimistic about their ability to influence decisions that affect their lives, with refuges in South Lebanon especially negative. While most respondents indicate that they know how to make a suggestion or file a complaint, few people believe they will get a response or benefit from follow- up action. • Refugees feel uninformed about the kind of aid they are entitled to, with lower scores than last year. Awareness of aid differs by group and location, with people in informal settlements and female-headed households least aware. 2.1 Q5. Participation 1.8 3.1 Q6. Awareness of aid 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 NEGATIVE POSITIVE Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 5 Protection and resilience – links to objective one, protection of vulnerable people, and four, reinforcing Lebanon’s stability • Most refugees feel safe. Both Syrian and Palestine refugees from Syria feel less safe than Palestine Refugees in Lebanon. • Host community relations have deteriorated compared to last year. Refugees feel less welcome by the host community than last year, especially those with larger families. Bad treatment, anti-refuge sentiment, and discrimination are the most commonly cited reasons. • Refugees do not feel aid empowers them to live without support in the future. Refugees want to provide for themselves. Difficulties getting the residency and work permits are a major obstacle. • Few refugees see progress of improvements in their lives. In South Lebanon, nearly all refugees say their lives are not improving. • Refugees generally feel treated with respect by aid providers. 3.5 Q9. Safety 3.8 Q10. Host community 3.4 relations 2.3 1.6 Q11. Empowerment 1.8 1.7 Q13. Progress 1.6 3.8 Q16. Respect 3.6 1 2 3 4 5 NEGATIVE POSITIVE Survey of humanitarian staff in Lebanon Humanitarian staff are more positive than refugees and see improvements since the last survey. The gap is widening between the way refugees and humanitarian staff view the effectiveness of the humanitarian response. Staff see fairness, participation, and relevance of aid more positively than last round, while refugee’s perceptions are increasingly negative, as described above. Needs and Services • Most humanitarian staff feel that humanitarian aid goes to those who need it most and meets refugees’ most important needs. However, staff are mostly negative about how aid is split between emergency needs and durable solutions, with the majority of staff members calling for more investment in durable solutions. This echoes refugees’ call for greater efforts to facilitate empowerment through increased employment opportunities. Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 6 Reporting & funding flexibility • The majority of humanitarian staff feel that the amount of time they spend on reporting is reasonable but their views on the harmonisation of donor requirements are mixed. • Staff see funding as sufficiently flexible, although donor requirements are blamed by those who say aid programmes do not adapt sufficiently to changing circumstances. Localisation • Staff views vary on the appropriateness of support given to local and national aid providers. More than a third of respondents feel that local organisations are capable of delivering high quality humanitarian aid and assistance to refugees. Humanitarian & development nexus • Humanitarian staff express mixed views on whether coordination is sufficient among key actors. Competition for funding and donor requirements are mentioned as barriers to successful coordination. Similarly, almost a third of those surveyed say cooperation between humanitarian and development organisations is ineffective. 2017 2018 Q1. Fairness 3.6 3.9 Q2. Relevance 3.7 Q3. Durable solutions 2.9 Q4. Reporting time 3.4 3.5 Q5. Reporting requirements 2.9 Q6. Localisation 2.7 3.1 Q7. Local capacity 3.1 Q9. Cash programmes 3.6 3.4 Q11. Flexibility 3.3 3.4 Q12. Corrective action 3.4 Q14. Coordination 3.1 Q15. Humanitarian development nexus 3.1 3.1 Q19. Participation 2.7 4.0 Q20. Feedback 3.6 3.9 Q22. Respect 4.2 Q23. Reporting mistreatment 4.3 Q25. Safety 4.3 *Additional questions were added to the 2018 field staff 1 2 3 4 5 survey, and therefore the 2017 field staff mean scores do not have scores for all questions. NEGATIVE POSITIVE Refugee & humanitarian staff survey • Lebanon • November 2018 7 Participation & accountability • Staff feel that complaints about abuse or mistreatment are dealt with in an appropriate manner. This contrasts with the views of refugees, 90% of whom say their complaints go unanswered compared to 82% of field staff who feel complaints are adequately addressed. • Humanitarian staff feel well informed about the perceptions of refugees, and they are more positive than in 2017 about the way feedback from refugees informs aid programmes. • Nearly half the respondents say that feedback from refugees is used to inform or influence aid projects and programmes. Refugees see things quite differently. • While field staff report numerous activities for community engagement such as focus group discussions and surveys, refugees do not feel their opinions count.